Trump-types at Wrigley; so apropos

The Republicans, particularly that faction of the Grand Old Party that actually believes in the ideals of Donald Trump and is willing to spend their own money to try to get him re-elected in 2020, will be convening in Chicago this weekend. 

Will Trump-ites invade Wrigley? Or will it feel like usual touristy crowd?

They’ll be at the Four Seasons Hotel, where they’ll be partaking in sessions where they’re supposed to plot just how they go about trying to get a majority of the electorate to cast ballots for Trump.

AND LIKE ANY other batch of tourists, they’re planning on taking a trip to Wrigley Field. They’re taking a chartered bus on Saturday, where they’ll attend a reception at the ball club’s offices across the street from the ball park.

Then, they’ll catch the game against the St. Louis Cardinals.

Not that it should be a surprise. The excessively-wealthy Ricketts family owns the ball club, and also has been prominent Republican backers who have made it clear they don’t have any objections to Donald Trump during his term as president – and certainly wouldn’t object if he manages to get re-elected next year.

Although news reports indicate it’s not exactly like it will be a takeover of Trump-ites at Wrigley Field.

Trump used to claim Yankees-fandom, … 

THEY’LL BE SEATED together in a separate section, which the team is refusing to identify. Perhaps they think it’s possible for the Trump-ites to blend in with the Cubbie crowd.

Although I won’t be surprised to learn that the bulk of the fan base attending Saturday’s game won’t actually be able to identify which of the people there are attending because of Trump – and which actually care about the ball game!

Then again, the stereotype of the Wrigley denizens is of a batch of people who are there to be seen, and probably care less about the activity on the playing field.

So maybe the only way we’ll be able to tell them apart is if the Trump crowd takes it upon themselves to wear those ridiculous red “Making America Great Again” caps – while everybody else will be anxious to wear Cubbie blue.

… just like Hillary Clinton used to do

EXCEPT FOR THOSE fans of the Cardinals who make the trip up to St. Louis. They’ll be in Cardinal red, identified most clearly by the “birds on the bat” logo that St. Louis has worn for decades.

Seriously, what always has struck me about the character of the crowds that attend Chicago Cubs ballgames is how touristy they are.

It’s like people who come in from out-of-town make a point of checking out the Willis Tower, Navy Pier and shopping on Michigan Avenue – and if they really feel like doing something “nitty-gritty,” they take in a ballgame.

In that sense, all the political out-of-towners coming to Chicago this weekend will be able to blend in with the Wrigley Field faithful. No real Chicagoan will be seen anywhere near 1060 W Addison St. (which cinematic fans automatically know is the alleged humble abode of one Elwood J. Blues).

SO I FIND it humorous to know that some people are getting all outraged about the ballpark presence of Trump-type people at Wrigley this weekend. Personally, I find it quite fitting. The Wrigley scene is exactly where I’d expect them to show up on those rare occasions they’re in Chicago.

As for the rest of us who’d rather not think of anything political when we venture out to the ballpark, perhaps we’ll find a reason to check out the Chicago White Sox. They’re in Kansas City on Saturday, playing a weekend series against the Royals.

Odd how many different outlets mis-IDed this 'Disco Demolition' photo as 1974's 'Dime Beer Night' in Cleveland

But the Washington Nationals will make an appearance this week, followed up by a four-game series against the New York Yankees. Personally, I’m considering making a trip to Thursday’s game – when the White Sox are holding a promotion remembering the 40-years-ago “Disco Demolition Night.”

Free t-shirts to those fans who want to remember the night when Steve Dahl developed a national reputation, and the White Sox game that night is still remembered – not bad for a promotion of a game between the American League’s two fifth-place ballclubs that season and will be remembered long after Saturday’s Cubbie affair is forgotten.

  -30-

Lightfoot “wins” battle; we’ll need to see how she prevails in the “war”

Mayor Lori Lightfoot had her first official meeting Wednesday with the City Council, and the aldermen didn’t go out of their way to try to humiliate her.

LIGHTFOOT: Prevailed, for now

Now as far as how Lightfoot treated the aldermen, that is debatable. For it could be that Lightfoot came ahead on her first political conflict, but may also have cemented a reputation that is bound to have her name taken in vain in certain City Hall offices.

LIGHTFOOT GETS CREDIT for a “win” because the council formally approved her picks for whom amongst them ought to be in charge of the various council committees.

Including the selection of 32nd Ward Alderman Scott Waguespack as chairman of the almighty and powerful Finance committee. While the senior-most alderman who was the long-time Finance chair, Edward M. Burke, got nothing.

Another council veteran who didn’t get any sort of committee posting was 9^th Ward Alderman Anthony Beale – who had been vocal in his criticisms of Lightfoot and made it pretty clear he didn’t think much of her mayorality. Regardless of the so-called historic nature of her term that many attributed to her.

For what it’s worth, Lightfoot’s committee chairmanships were approved by the aldermen by a voice vote. Meaning there is no recorded roll-call.

Will Burke and Beale (below) become … 

IT IS MORE a matter of the mayor deciding that the “ayes” had it, and as for the “nays,” well, she didn’t hear any, so she says her side prevailed. She won! She so declared it.

Which strikes me as just as much a political “boss” behavior as any of the past mayors from City Hall history whom the Lightfoot proponents are quick to lambast.

For what it’s worth, various news accounts of the council session place the number of potential critics at about 10 – which would mean about 40 supported Lightfoot. Although the Chicago Sun-Times went so far as to say there were four aldermen who voted “no,” with Burke and Beale most definitely being amongst them.

… a bi-racial coalition speaking out against Lori?

But we should keep in mind that nobody recorded a vote, so we can’t say definitively that either man was opposed. Because, after all, the “ayes” have it.

NOW AS FAR as Lightfoot’s appointments on Wednesday, she chose 18 of the 50 aldermen to have committees that they would oversee – thereby giving them some degree of influence; if not outright power.

The appointment that caught my attention was that of 44^th Ward Alderman Tom Tunney, who in addition to being Zoning committee chair also is now vice mayor. Not bad for an alderman whom the Ricketts family tried to single out for political defeat because he wouldn’t cater to all the whims the family had in the way they wanted the Lake View neighborhood surrounding Wrigley Field to be remodeled to the financial benefit of the Chicago Cubs.

Then again, there’s the way the new mayor gave the back of her hand to Burke – who has been an alderman for 50-plus years but now has brought national notoriety (if not outright shame and disgrace) to the City Council for the criminal investigation now pending against him.

At one point, Burke tried to lecture Lightfoot on the use of the pronoun “he” in her measure, and tried to play the moralistic high-ground by calling for gender-neutral terms – to which she cut him off.

WHEN HE TRIED to bring up other issues, she responded, “Alderman, please. I will call you when I want to hear from you.”

TUNNEY: Chicago's new vice-mayor

I don’t doubt that Burke took it as a personal snub, and it most likely was intended as such. For all I know, Burke and Beale (who had been a council committee chair under mayors Emanuel and Daley) may form an alliance – which could also wind up including several Latino aldermen.

Some of whom are miffed over the notion that only two of the 18 committee chairs came from their ranks. Which may be given the political spin of being a multi-racial and ethnic coalition of people who object to the coming of the Lightfoot years.

But then again, we have to concede, Lightfoot did say “please” before treating Burke as coldly as the legendary Richard J. Daley ever treated those opposing aldermen who suddenly saw their microphones turned off in mid-rant!

  -30-

Obama stealing presidential perk from Trump w/ Cubs White House visit?

Perhaps it’s only appropriate that the first president with solid Chicago ties (Ronald Reagan’s connection was living here one year when he was about 3) gets to host the White House visit of the first Chicago Cubs baseball team that was able to win anything in a long, long time.

President Barack Obama will pay tribute to the Chicago Cubs' World Series victory, similar to the belated tribute he gave to the Super Bowl-winning Chicago Bears of 1985. Just wondering if coach Mike Ditka (now known to be a Trump backer, wishes he could take back the jersey. Photographs provided by White House.

Although I’m wondering if there will be political partisans who will claim Barack Obama is stealing away a moment in the public eye from incoming President Donald J. Trump.

SERIOUSLY, THOSE PEOPLE are capable of complaining about anything and everything. I’m sure they’re already looking for excuses to claim they’re being snubbed.

And the fact that the Cubs, who won the World Series back in November, will make their celebratory White House visit on Monday, instead of waiting for the team’s next trip to Washington (June 26-29, to play the Nationals), is just the kind of fluff event that will cause some to get outraged!

It was reported this week by various news organizations (because this kind of fluff is easy to comprehend, unlike budgetary matters or the ongoing fight over how to kill off Obama’s political signature Affordable Care Act) that most of the Cubs players will be on hand at the White House for the event with Obama.

Although I’m wondering if any ballplayers decide to try to make their own political statement – similar to when Obama tried to pay tribute to the 1985 Chicago Bears team that won a Super Bowl, only to have Dan Hampton refuse to show up in protest.

Obama also paid tribute to the Chicago Blackhawks victories in various Stanley Cups.

LET’S NOT FORGET that pitcher Jake Arrieta befouled the celebratory mood of Cubs fans in early November when, on Election Day, he used his own Twitter account on Election Night to make comments interpreted by some as mocking those people who were appalled by Trump’s political victory.

In fact, let’s not forget that amongst Trump’s appointments to cabinet and staff positions was one for Todd Ricketts, the brother of Cubs team chairman Tom Ricketts, to be a deputy secretary in the Department of Commerce.

Does Clinton wish this event were hers?

There may be some people who think the Cubs should have waited until June so that the new president can have the honors. In fact, it has me wondering if Trump would be so petty as to demand his own personal event with the Cubs.

We know he loves positive press and certainly is capable of being petty and childish.

BUT FOR NOW, we’re going to get the Cubs appearing with Obama. His final public appearance in Chicago was Tuesday night, which could make the Cubs his final event with Chicago ties before he departs the White House at noon on Jan. 20.

I’m sure the event will be light-hearted fluff – one that I’m sure the ballplayers will use to make themselves feel all important. Although I suspect back in 2006 when the World Series-winning Chicago White Sox got a White House visit with then-President George W. Bush, they were probably more impressed Hugh Hefner invited the team to visit the Playboy Mansion.

Because after all, they’re ballplayers and the political people, including the president, are just about wetting themselves with glee at the thought of getting to meet them. But “Hef” had girls and booze on hand for his event!

If anything, it might have been worse for the Cubs if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election – because then she’d be citing her lifelong ties to rooting for the team – while also probably trying to have burned and shredded every single photographic image that depicts her wearing a New York Yankees cap.

A MOVE SHE made back when she ran for the U.S. Senate – coming up with the convoluted logic of being a Cubs fan who rooted for the Yankees in the American League. An explanation that no legitimate baseball fan ever took seriously.

Then again, there’s Obama – who because he wound up settling in Hyde Park on the South Side adopted the Chicago White Sox. Whose team web site identifies Obama as their “first fan.”

Yet it was then-President George W. Bush who paid tribute to the last Chicago team to win a World Series -- the White Sox of '05.

Yet Obama on Monday will offer up his bit of public praise for the ball club and moment that made many hard-core White Sox fans nauseous; citing the idea of uniting Chicago into one.

That’s Bull! Then again, it takes basketball and our disappointment with the Bulls to truly unite the Chicago sporting mentality.

  -30-

Keeping Trump quiet? Or they really just despise the thought of Hillary?

Remember back to March when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump made derogatory remarks about the Ricketts family; implying they ought to keep their opposition to his candidacy quiet lest he start revealing their “dirty laundry” so to speak?
 

TRUMP: Trying to unite Republicans

Well, it appears the family that founded TD Ameritrade and whose members now own the Chicago Cubs are heeding Trump’s advice. Because they’re showing support for Trump in the clearest way possible.

THEY’RE GIVING HIM money.

As in $1 million being donated by family head J. Joe Ricketts to a political action committee that is backing the Trump campaign, according to the Wall Street Journal.

What better way for them to indicate support than to give campaign cash to the guy who theoretically is as capable of self-funding a serious presidential bid as anyone in this country? In fact, to a guy like Trump, cold hard cash probably is the only form of "respect" he appreciates!

Of course, it can be argued that Ricketts is not making the donation to Trump himself. Rather, it is to a political group that will benefit Trump’s presidential aspirations by expressing its belief that we ought to have anybody EXCEPT Hillary Clinton as president resulting from the Nov. 8 elections. So much for Cubs ownership showing its appreciation for one of their most prominent (even if she has claimed New York Yankees fandom during her residency out east) fans.

WHICH IS PROBABLY the best way to describe what the Ricketts family may feel about this election cycle. They probably still don’t think much of the man, but are willing to put their money where their mouth is – so to speak – by expressing opposition for the opponent.

 

RICKETTS: Tom's family in line behind Trump?

In short, the Ricketts answer to “Who do you hate the most?” is Clinton herself.

Either that, or there really are some serious Ricketts family secrets that Trump could have unveiled – which is what he hinted at when the Ricketts family members started making too much noise in his opposition back during the primary election cycle this year.

Of course, Trump tried to play the thing for a laugh by then by saying he’d be airing campaign advertising spots reminding us of Chicago Cubs ineptitude throughout the years and tagging it to the Ricketts family.

 

CLINTON: Cubs fan can't say Cubs owners in her bloc?

WHICH WOULD WIND up being ridiculous these days in light of the fact the Cubs actually were the first team to qualify this season for a playoff spot on the path to the World Series. Although that doesn’t rule out the possibility the Cubs could blow it in the playoffs, thereby creating more ineptitude that can be laid in the Ricketts’ family lap.

Not that the Cubs are really a factor in this political equation. It’s more about the confusion caused by the fact that many people who usually lean Republican don’t have a clue what to do about the garishness that is the Trump persona.

Take former President George H.W. Bush (as in father of “Dubya,”), for whom it became publicly known this week that he will cast his ballot for Clinton. The man who is about as Republican establishment as you can get is just that displeased with the notion of The Donald as The President.

Although I found it amusing that the reason this tip got out was because of a Kennedy family member (about as establishment Democrat as the Bushes are GOPers) let the word leak publicly, according to Politico.

WHICH IS TO say that I doubt Bush himself would ever have said anything aloud, and probably regards the tidbit about his ballot to be as gauche as Trump himself.

It will be intriguing to see how many Republican types Trump can actually keep on board his campaign. Too many defections ensure loss to Clinton come Election Day.

I’m sure there will be many people rationalizing their reasons for voting the way they do. Take the National Rifle Association, which the Washington Post reports says is fully in line with Trump because they’re concerned about the Supreme Court – which they want to remain as a judicial body with conservative political leanings. They want the court biased in their favor.

Although there are just as many other people who are eager to vote for Clinton solely because they want the shift in the high court’s leanings. Which is to say that anybody who says they know now how this election cycle will turn out is seriously stretching the truth.

  -30-

EXTRA: Kirk, Ricketts family, both on political 'naughty' list -- does the GOP like anybody these days?

So it seems that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., is choosing to side with the latter part of his identifier, rather than the former.

KIRK: Chose state over party; will it hurt him?

As in he’s an Illinoisan more than a Republican.

FOR KIRK ON Monday took a stand with regards to the replacement of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States.

As is turns out, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Kirk says he wants President Barack Obama to make a nomination to the high court later this spring, with the U.S. Senate to review that nomination probably sometime during the summer.

The new justice could be in place long before Election Day, the way Kirk sees it.

Of course, that creates the political dynamic of having Kirk challenge the leadership of his own political party – as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was quick to claim the post should be left vacant for the rest of this year.

AFTER ALL, HE wants the chance of a Republican president in this year’s elections making the appointment as one of his first actions upon victory. Presuming, of course, that a Republican actually wins the November election.

Now this shouldn’t really be a surprise, because Kirk has never been as hardline ideologue as some of his Republican caucus colleagues when it comes to social issues. He is a former military man, which likely is the primary reason he chooses to be a Republican even though he’s from a Democrat-leaning state.

So the fact that he doesn’t want to give either Tammy Duckworth or Andrea Zopp an issue to use against him come the general election cycle makes his public statements predictable.

Who is more angered? Mitch at Mark, or...

Particularly since Kirk also said he thinks any person nominated to the high court by Obama ought to be of a moderate political persuasion. Meaning the leftist ideologues might have to temper their fantasies of a societal takeover.

BUT THIS CAN have consequences because it means Kirk is challenging the hardline that his political party wanted to take – NOTHING for Obama! Could it be the party bigwigs wind up putting the pressure on the big money influences that offer support to Republican candidates; ensuring they cut off Kirk’s share of the cash flow from the political spigot?

Could he wind up hampered enough to the point where he can’t compete against the possibility of an adequately-funded campaign by either Duckworth or Zopp (it’s not going to be Napoleon Harris – no matter how much the one-time NFL football player fantasizes about going to Washington, D.C).

... Trump at the Ricketts?

It seems Kirk is putting his stake in getting the love of Illinois residents, rather than that of his political party, which is likely to start treating him like a pariah!

Probably similar to how would-be Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is trying to treat the Ricketts family. They’re the wealthy ones from Nebraska, with several of their children living in the Chicago area, who have as a hobby their ownership of the Chicago Cubs.

THE RICKETTS ARE the type of wealthy people who like to express themselves with their checkbooks – and in this election cycle have given money to the presidential dreams of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Lindsay Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.

In short, they’ve backed just about everybody EXCEPT Trump. Who doesn’t need their campaign money. But it’s the principle – how dare they express political love for everybody BUT him!

Will Wrigley Field protect from Wrath of Trump?!?

Trump used a Twitter account, according to the Chicago Tribune, to publicly make his criticism, writing that the Ricketts’ family, “better be careful, they have a lot to hide!”

Which makes me wonder what kind of retribution he has planned for people who aren’t “loyal” to his ideals. Perhaps he’s the type who’d seek payback against Kirk for suggesting that Trump himself shouldn’t be entitled to make the Supreme Court pick all by himself without the “advise and consent” of the U.S. Senate.

  -30-

Will Cubs become an Amway product?

I couldn’t help but chuckle at the thought that the owner of the company that gives us Amway products is now a part-owner of the Chicago Cubs.

It’s true – the Ricketts family that bought the ball club from the Tribune Co. several years ago needed to come up with the cash somehow to do that bleacher remodeling at Wrigley Field. Their way of financing was to sell a portion of the ball club to outside interests.

ESPN REPORTED THAT the DeVos family is among six new investors who collectively now own about 10 percent of the Cubs – meaning the Ricketts family is still solidly in control of the baseball activity at Clark and Addison streets.

But their money accounts for the $375 million being spent on the construction work taking place this winter at Wrigley Field for the remodeling that is meant to give the 101-year-old stadium touches of 21^st Century modernity – particularly ones that the Cubs can use to squeeze money from corporate interests, thereby boosting the team’s profitability.

Now I realize it isn’t unusual for sports franchises to have multiple owners, and people whose percent or two of a ball club gives them the bragging rights, so to speak, of saying it’s their team – even though they don’t really have the authority to fire a hot dog vendor who can’t wash his hands properly prior to doing his job.

If I recall correctly, long-time Chicago White Sox Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf only owns a miniscule share of the team – but has control because all the minority partners support him.

WHEREAS THE RICKETTS family members are still fully in control of the Cubs, and are to blame for anything that goes wrong with the ball club.

But it does create potential for comic relief to have the Amway people involved, since the very concept of “Amway products” (assorted cleaning and beauty supplies that people sell to try to earn extra money for themselves) is often good for a punch line.

I remember the one time someone tried to get me involved with Amway – a former college classmate of mine managed to supplement his income with them, and he was trying to get me into the idea of selling such products.

Because Amway’s concept of people creating their own “business” means they get a portion of the sales made by anyone whom they recruit into the scheme. On a certain level, it seems like a giant pyramid scheme. Although I’m presuming that since Amway has not been indicted by the feds, they’re managing to follow the letter of the law.

BUT DOES THIS mean that fans can now get some sort of bonus if they manage to entice other people to actually go to Cubs games, thereby boosting team attendance regardless of whether or not the ball club actually lives up to all the promise we’re hearing about all the hot prospects the team supposedly now has?

Could we get concession stands at the ball park offering up Amway products?

Heck, will we literally get the Amway Co. someday buying the naming rights to the structure known for many decades as Wrigley Field (promoting the chewing gum)?

Amway Field? Is it any more ridiculous than United Center, home of the Chicago Bulls. I’m sure the very thought would wind up being the punch line for many a joke told by the U.S. Cellular Field crowd in the future.

SPEAKING OF PRO basketball, the DeVos family is primary owner of the Orlando Magic, which plays its games in a structure known as Amway Center.

So for those of you Cubs fans who are now thinking to yourself that I’m being ridiculous, absurd and a downright fool for suggesting something that could never happen, keep in mind that in business just about anything can happen if it has potential to bring in more revenue.

Of course, there is the ultimate question – should we now regard Chicago Cubs baseball itself to be an Amway product?

One that at least a few Chicagoans would probably react to in the same way whenever they are offered a chance to buy Amway-brand cleaning solutions – slamming that wallet or purse shut tight!

  -30-

EXTRA: Want a piece of the Cubs?

Have you ever fantasized about owning a piece of the Chicago Cubs?

Helping to pay to fix up Wrigley Field could get you a minority partnership in the ball club?

 

Personally, I can’t comprehend why anyone in their right mind would want to. But to each his own, and now it seems there’s a chance you might actually be able to buy a bit of the ball club that represents Chicago in the National League.

NOT THAT YOU’D get your chance to do anything in the way of changing the way things work at Clark and Addison streets.

For, as reported by Comcast SportsNet and Crain’s Chicago Business, nothing is definite yet. But the Ricketts family that owns majority control of the team reportedly is considering selling a few shares of the team.

Their intent is to come up with the $500 million it is estimated it will cost to do a series of renovations on Wrigley Field to ensure that the building will be structurally sound enough to be in use for several more decades, while still having amenities that will allow it to compete with the newest stadiums and all their special (cash-generating) features.

The Ricketts family is wealthy. And my guess is that part of the reason they got so much money is because they don’t go around spending it if they can get someone else to.

SO THE FACT that the Rickettses want a remodeled stadium doesn’t mean they’re going to mortgage the family fortune to get it done.

Get a series of investors to put up the cash, and reward them with shares of the ball club. Not enough for them to have control. But enough that they can go walking around with their chests puffed out saying, “I own the Chicago Cubs!!!”

I suppose it’s no different than the Chicago White Sox situation, where there are many people who own a part of the ball club – some of whom have been around since the days when Bill Veeck ran the team. But they’re all pledged loyal to Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, and they don’t try to run anything.

I suppose it’s the next step up from those personal seat licenses some professional sports franchises sell to people. You have to cough up a significant amount of cash in order to have the right to buy tickets to individual games.

SO THE NEXT time you venture to Wrigley Field (I want to say that the last time I went there, they played the Montreal Expos – it’s been awhile), just think. You may wind up finding yourself sitting next to an “owner” of the team.

You can guzzle back your Old Style-brand beer (why some people feel such a love for it that the ball club reached an agreement to keep it, despite the dominance of Anheuser-Busch products throughout the ball park is something I’ll never comprehend) while listening to him tell you what he’d do differently – if only he had a real say in the team.

Just something to think about, if you’re amongst those willing to put up with the predicted 48-degree temperatures and overcast skies just to see the Philadelphia Phillies give the Cubbies a Friday afternoon Opening Day pounding!

  -30-

Are the times a changin’ for aldermen, or is da Boss becoming more almighty?

It’s one of the basic tenants of the Chicago political scene – the alderman is all-powerful, within the boundaries of his (or her) ward.



TUNNEY: Losing to the Cubs?

When the full City Council considers an issue, the viewpoint of the alderman whose ward is directly impacted is given great consideration. It isn’t often that an alderman can’t get his (or her) colleagues to sympathize.

WHICH IS WHY it is unusual to see a pair of happenings now occurring at City Hall – the political squabbling concerning the renovation (long needed) of Wrigley Field AND the replacement of retiring 33^rd Ward Alderman Dick Mell.

In the case of Wrigley, one of the political opponents has been 44^th Ward Alderman Tom Tunney – who has tried to present himself as the man who is looking out for the interests of the people who actually live in the Lake View neighborhood and would have to cope with the additional foot traffic that a renovated ballpark is meant to create.

But Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who is the self-admitted not-much-of-a baseball fan, has taken the lead on this issue – arguing that the presence of the Chicago Cubs impacts the entire city.

Although I’m sure he also realizes that if the Cubs were to wind up taking one of those suburban offers for a new stadium, Emanuel would be the one who would wind up looking weak and ineffectual.

SO ANY THOUGHTS that Tunney had that he’d be the tough guy who’d stand up to the Cubs and the Ricketts family that owns them has pretty much shriveled up.



DEB MELL: Her father's pick? Or Hizzoner's?

Many of Tunney’s objections to advertising signs being erected along with video boards (the oft-mentioned Jumbotron) have been resolved in favor of the ball club. Although when the City Council meets Wednesday (likely to give final approval), Tunney may still have “demands” for his support.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Tunney wants a walkway over Clark Street eliminated, along with reductions in the impact of a proposed hotel where the McDonalds’ franchise is and a 10-year ban on outfield advertising signs.

I’m not going to be surprised if the council winds up ignoring those demands. Because Emanuel wants to get this issue resolved NOW rather than LATER.

THE COUNCIL TAKES the month of August off from public business. The last thing officials want is for this issue to linger for another month of speculation.

DICK MELL: Remaining the boss of his ward

But this isn’t the only issue in which the alderman’s thoughts aren’t being treated with knee-jerk reverence. Although when it comes to replacing Dick Mell, his views may wind up becoming the official stance of Emanuel.

Because Mell has made it known he wants his daughter, Deb (the current state representative for the legislative district that includes the 33^rd Ward) to replace him as alderman.

Emanuel has gone through his self-created process of accepting applications to make it appear as though anybody could have come forth and become the alderman.

BUT EMANUEL HAS made comments implying that he’s not opposed to the idea of a new “Alderman Mell.” He just seems determined to stage the process in a way so it seems that she was HIS choice for the post, and NOT Dick Mell’s pick.

For those who are saying that it is somehow “good government” not to let the departing alderman pick his replacement, keep in mind that former Mayor Richard M. Daley was around for so long and got to make so many aldermanic appointments that he wound up controlling more than half of the City Council.

Do we really think it better than Emanuel gets to reinforce the notion of the City Council as his rubber stamp?



EMANUEL: Showing his authority

Although in the case of the Mells, Dick won’t be irrelevant. For he kept the position of Democratic committeeman for the 33^rd Ward – the political party post that has the authority influence the alderman’s thinking and ensure their future re-election.

WHICH IS WHY it is reality that the most powerful government officials are the ones who double their influence by being committeeman AND holding a political post.

Those are the kind of officials who have the influence to tell the mayor what he ought to do. Which is something I suspect Emanuel isn’t terribly interested in having to deal with.

  -30-

Wood’s retirement timing all too perfect – both athletically and politically

If I didn’t know any better, I’d suspect the timing of Chicago Cubs pitcher Kerry Wood’s retirement announcement was a political plot.

Because as the Chicago White Sox continue their road trip to the North Side for a weekend three-game series against the Cubs (and taking the Friday game by a 3-2 score), the games on the field aren’t going to be that interesting.

THE WHITE SOX are struggling for a .500 winning percentage, while the Cubs are trying to avoid being historically awful this season. Nothing really to see here this year.

There was always the chance that this weekend’s series would get overshadowed by electoral politics – specifically the fact that the wealthy father of the family that owns the Cubs (and is begging city government to kick in for an extensive structural remodeling of Wrigley Field) was willing to spend his money on insipid campaign strategies meant to remind us that Barack Obama is (horrors!) a black man.

Because that is the only thing that gets accomplished by reminding us of the fact (which everybody who cares already knows) that Obama once was a member of the congregation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright – who in many ways is a typical preacher in the African-American rhetorical tradition.

There are some people who are talking about boycotting the Cubs because of this. Although I suspect many people won’t care, and some of the types of Chicagoans who typically root for the Cubs may well approve of such a political tactic; maybe even because Obama himself publicly roots for the White Sox.

YES, I HAVE known people who call themselves Cubs fans who say one of the reasons they prefer the North Side team is because of their perception (not altogether accurate, but not completely false either) that the Wrigley Field scene is one for white people – compared to Chicago’s “other” ballclub.

But aside from that, there would have been the talk overshadowing the three-game series that would have had many people caring little about the ballgames themselves.

Personally, I’d rather not have to think about that kind of rancid rhetoric. Being able to get away from trash talk is one of the reasons I enjoy going to ballgames.

Being able to focus for a couple of hours on why the shortstop is so inept that he can’t catch a “routine” ground ball helps me to keep my sanity after being exposed to the political world as much as I often am.

ALTHOUGH THIS IS going to become a political issue, since Obama’s former Chief of Staff (a.k.a., Mayor Rahm Emanuel) is now supposedly so peeved that the Ricketts family would get themselves involved in Obama opposition (even though Ricketts daughter, Laura – who is one of the ballclub owners – has contributed her money to Obama in the past).

He supposedly is unwilling to even talk to the family, regardless of the fact that Cubs CEO Tom Ricketts had the Cubs issue a statement in his name saying neither he, nor the ballclub, were a part of any such political strategy, and certainly didn’t approve of it.

Emanuel is the kind of political person who can hold a grudge, particularly since he doesn’t have the intense “feel” for baseball as a spectator sport that many political people claim to have.

And while there might someday be forgiveness to the point that a deal gets done to have the city involved in funding the Wrigley renovation, it would seem it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

WHICH IS A shame because of speculation that state government would somehow have to be involved, and the General Assembly is rapidly coming up on the May 31 date that it is scheduled to adjourn for the summer.

This could wind up being more “dumb luck” for a ballclub that historically is loaded with such gaffes.

Joe Ricketts, the patriarch of the clan, may well have accomplished more than he intended – even though he isn’t directly involved with the ballclub’s management.

Which is why I’m sure there are those who will be eager to shift the attention back to Wood – who let it be known Friday morning that this weekend series against the White Sox will be the end of his career.

HIS “FINAL” STINT on a pitcher’s mound would come at Wrigley Field, and it would be against the White Sox. Which is about as dramatic a finale as he could craft during this season!



The "big names" of the '90s are now all gone from Chicago



I’m sure some people are going to claim this moment will be Chicago sports history in the making – although it really will be nothing more than a struggling pitcher who no longer has his “best stuff” facing a mediocre ballclub for a hitter or two.



It certainly wouldn’t be anything like that date in 1998 when Wood was a rookie pitcher from Irving, Texas (Dallas Cowboys country) who took the mound against the Houston Astros – and only seven hitters that game did not get punched out by strikeout.

  -30-